[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The fate of libc5



On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:04:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Speaking as a maintainer of two libc5-compat libraries, I'd rather remove
> them than keep them. Their only use (at least as long as I've been the
> maintainer for libtiff3 and xpm4.7) was that they made me learn more about
> how to write more complex makefiles. :) I don't even know if they work
> correctly, as nothing links to them in Debian, I don't have any local
> programs linked to them, and no users have reported anything about them to
> me, ever. The status quo is unnerving.

Ditto.  I'll reiterate some things I've said elsewhere.

* I will make no effort to support libc5 with XFree86 4.x or later.

* I was going to keep XFree86 3.x around, but delegate its maintenance to
  someone else (Stephen R. Gore has volunteered and I accepted before he
  changed his mind >:-) ) for two reasons: to provide X server binaries for
  hardware that 4.x doesn't support yet, and to provide libc5-compat
  libraries.

* If I won't have to support libc5 with the old XFree86 packages either,
  then that's great.  We can prune the xfree86-1 3.x source tarball way
  down and greatly speed up package build time.  XFree86 3.x would become
  about as easy to maintain as X can conceivably be (no libs, no clients,
  no fonts, just a few server binaries).

I am in favor of dropping libc5 support from woody.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |   A great work of art has never caused any
Debian GNU/Linux                |   social problems.  Social problems are
branden@debian.org              |   caused by those trying to protect
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |   society from great works of art.

Attachment: pgpHyUjoqKkwf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: